Manchester Mills v. Manchester

• Decision Date: 14 June 1876
• Parties: The Manchester Mills v. The City Of Manchester.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

57 N.H. 309

The Manchester Mills v. The City Of Manchester.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

June 14, 1876

Abatement of taxes---Valuation.

The petitioners alleged that their factories and machinery, land and buildings, according to the valuation and taxation of other property, were taxed too high. The factories and machinery were appraised at one sum, and the land and buildings at another. A committee appointed by the circuit court were directed to report the value of similar estate in M. other than the plaintiffs', compared with its assessed value in 1874. The committee reported on the assessed value of other similar estate, to wit, of other manufacturing establishments, and also of other similar estate, to wit, all the real estate except manufacturing establishments.

Held that the admission of evidence of the value of real estate other than manufacturing establishments, was no ground of exception.

Held that this court would not examine affidavits for the purpose of determining the correctness of the report in matters of fact, that being more properly the province of the circuit court.

Held that the report might be recommitted, at the discretion of the circuit court, for explanation or further hearing.

Held, that, if the assessors intentionally appraised other property in the city

generally at less than its true value, and at the same time appraised the property of the plaintiffs at its true value, or higher in proportion than other property in the city generally was appraised, "justice requires" that upon a petition under Gen. Stats., ch. 53, sec. 11, an order be made reducing the plaintiffs' tax so that their property shall bear no more than its equal proportion of this public burden, according to its real value

FROM HILLSBOROUGH CIRCUIT COURT.

PETITION, for abatement of taxes, representing that the assessors of Manchester, in April, 1874, assessed a tax upon the petitioners' property in said city, under the name of the Manchester Print Works and Mills, rating the land and buildings of the corporation at $400,000, and the factories and machinery at $950,000, and assessing a tax upon that valuation.

The petitioners represent that according to the valuation and taxation of other property in said city for this and other years, the valuation of the land and buildings should not have been above $150,000, and of the factories and machinery, $500,000; that on July 25, 1874, they made application to said assessors for an abatement of said tax, which was refused.

At the September term of this court the petition was referred to Aaron W. Sawyer and John S. H. Frink, with instructions to report,---

First. What was the true value of the plaintiffs' estate, described in this petition, in April, 1874?

Second. What was the value of similar estate in Manchester, other than the plaintiffs' (as near as you can estimate it), compared with its assessed value in April, 1874?

Third. What was the rate per cent. of taxation in Manchester for the year 1874?

At this term the referees submitted their report as follows:

"Pursuant to the annexed commission, the undersigned referees, appointed by the court in said case, having given the parties due notice of the time and place of the hearing (being duly sworn to the faithful discharge of their duties), and having heard, examined, and considered the allegations and evidence of both parties, do report our finding upon the questions submitted to us in the annexed commission as follows:

"Question First. What was the true value of the plaintiffs' estate, described in the said petition, in April, 1874?

"Answer. The referees find that the true value of the plaintiffs' estate, described in said petition, on the day named, was $1,300,000.

"Question Second. What was the value of similar estate in Manchester, other than the plaintiffs' (as near as you can estimate it), compared with its assessed value in April, 1874?

"Answer. The referees find that the assessed value of other similar estate, to wit, of other manufacturing establishments in said Manchester, on the day named, was seven tenths of its true value; and the

referees further find, that the assessed value of other similar estate in said Manchester, to wit, of all the real estate, excepting manufacturing establishments, on the day named, was one half of its true value.

"Question Third. What was the rate per cent. of taxation in Manchester for the year 1874?

"Answer. The rate per cent. of taxation in Manchester for the year 1874 was two dollars and forty-six cents upon the hundred dollars.

"The plaintiffs introduced, against the defendants' exception, evidence of the value of other real estate (excepting manufacturing establishments) situate in various parts of said city of Manchester; and the referees having received said evidence, at the request of the defendants report their exception thereto."

The counsel for the city thereupon filed the following objections to the report, and moved that the same be set aside; and in support of said motion they also filed the papers annexed thereto, and market respectively A, B, C, D.

The report of the treasurer of the Manchester Print Works, at a meeting held in Boston, July 9, 1873, may be used in argument.

The city of Manchester objected as follows: "The commissioners having made a report at the present term, the petitioners ask an abatement of $15,276.60 of the whole tax, which motion is resisted by the city. The city moves that the report be set aside, (1) because the commissioners allowed evidence to be introduced not warranted by their commission; (2) because of manifest error on the part of the commissioners, as shown by the affidavits herewith furnished; (3) the city also moves that with or without setting aside the report, the cause be sent to a jury; (4) and in case the last motion is not granted, that the court receive and consider testimony by the defendants in connection with the report; (5) the city also object to any abatement, because the tax was paid without protest or objection before the present proceedings were commenced; and the city has paid over large sums to the state and county upon the basis of that valuation."

Certain ex parte affidavits are submitted on both sides for the purpose of proving or disproving the third objection.

Ira A. Eastman, Cross & Burnham, and S. N. Bell, for the plaintiffs. C. R. Morrison and Briggs & Huse, for the defendants

CUSHING C. J

The petitioners represent that at the time of the assessment complained of their land and buildings were valued at $400,000, their factories and machinery at $950,000; and they allege that this valuation, according to the valuation of other property in this and other years, was much too large;---and for this reason they claim an abatement of the tax. It is worth while to note in the beginning what the ground was on which they claim their abatement of taxes. It was not that their property was appraised too high according to its real value, or

even high enough, but that it was appraised too high according to the valuation of other property. The city of Manchester does not appear to have made in the outset any objection to the lawfulness or justness of this claim. The record does not show that it was objected on the part of the city that this property ought to be valued at its exact market value, while all the other property in Manchester was valued at a much less rate; but at the time when the commission was issued it was apparently conceded that if this property was really valued at a much higher rate than other property for the purpose of taxation, it would be just that it should be abated.

Nor is it easy to see how the city could contend that this claim of the petitioners was not just, assuming that the facts on which it rested were true; and I think it would be difficult so to contend. I believe it is admitted to be just and lawful that each person should bear the burden of taxation equally with all the others. In order to produce this result, it is necessary that all property should be valued proportionally; and if for any reason, whether to prevent the city from being rated too high by the legislature in fixing the share of state and county taxes which each town and city is required to pay, or for any other reason, the authorities had valued all other property at less than its true value, the petitioners' property for purposes of taxation ought to be valued at the same rate.

The law requires that the circuit court shall make such order on this petition as is just. I think we ought to hold as law, that whenever it shall be made to appear that the property in any town or city has been designedly appraised at less than its true value, the question to be determined is, whether the property on which the petitioners claim an abatement of tax...